The PhiloFile

Ischaramoochie

"wisest is he who knows that he does not know."

Can ignorance be an object of knowledge, considering that we define ignorance as a lack of knowledge?
_________________
"The grandeur of a philosophy does not certify its truth."
-M. Cooley

...Veritas? Quid est Veritas?

la_flash · Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 3:07 am Post subject:

^^ Maybe, it is knowing that you lack knowledge is a form of knowledge in itself. Knowing that you lack it will drive you to aspire for it, hence gaining more knowledge.

A fool will always say that he knows everything, or that he knows all things that he should know, ignoring the fact that he can not possibly know everything.

However, it is kinda weird that you know that you lack knowledge, therefore it is ignorance... but knowing that you lack knowledge is a knowledge itself... Isn't it a case of self-referential contradiction?
_________________
I will be the next Hokage...

Ischaramoochie · Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:33 pm Post subject:

I'm led to think that knowledge of one's ignorance is not necessarily knowledge in any real sense, but constitutes either an admission of willful ignorance or a kind of methodic doubt. It may also be considered a starting point in arriving at de facto knowledge, but is not yet knowledge per se. Perhaps it would be similar to the positive way in which we define and use the term "nothing" ("nothing is..." as opposed to saying "nothing is not...").
_________________
"The grandeur of a philosophy does not certify its truth."
-M. Cooley

...Veritas? Quid est Veritas?

la_flash · Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:00 am Post subject:

^^ Well, I agree to some extent.

But, let us consider quantum mechanics... it is said that we are still ignorant of this, or nobody really understands quantum mechanics. What can you say about this?
_________________
I will be the next Hokage...

REJOBOTO · Brute Joined: 24 Aug 2006 Posts: 3

Knowledge, as it relates to MAN, is FIXED.

This is to say that there is a STATIC SET OF DATA that MAN may tap into, gain cognition of, & claim KNOWLEDGE OF. Anything beyond is FANTASY.

Ignorance is basically the state of MAN not having "PLUCKED FRUIT" from this "TREE OF KNOWLEDGE".
_________________
CHRISTIANITY IS LOGICAL.

Ischaramoochie · Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:12 pm Post subject:

yes, that might be true, rejoboto, but it involves assumptions which are still subject to debate, such as to whether there is such a thing as this "tree of knowledge," and how/what we know of it.

for instance, when i say that i don't know anything about the tree of knowledge, does this admission of ignorance constitute a kind of knowledge relating to the object "tree of knowledge?"
_________________
"The grandeur of a philosophy does not certify its truth."
-M. Cooley

...Veritas? Quid est Veritas?

dignified · Observer Joined: 31 Jul 2006 Posts: 14

I believe it is not ignorance that's being implied by Socrates, rather humility.
_________________
Think Again.

kn1ghtjp · Observer Joined: 06 Dec 2006 Posts: 27

I would suggest the knowledge is different from wisdom as Socrates posits.

wisdom is not the possession of knowledge nor the absence of it but rather can be one's attitude toward it. If one takes the position that one already knows, that might prohibit one from learning anything. If one knows that one does not know, that is an attitude of learning.

la_flash · Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:32 am Post subject:

^^ but wisdom is directly proportional to knowledge... how one can become wise when he does not know anything?
_________________
I will be the next Hokage...

kn1ghtjp · Observer Joined: 06 Dec 2006 Posts: 27

true, wisdom is the application of knowledge. knowledge in learning used wisely is what socrates would be espousing and not wisdom without knowledge.

uhm... is this a competition to state the most obvious? Shocked

Ischaramoochie · Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject:

i'm not so sure of that either. Socrates (Plato?) did argue that all knowledge is innate, and that we only need to remember things instead of learn them. In this sense, wisdom would probably be the realization of ignorance as a first step towards true knowledge.
_________________
"The grandeur of a philosophy does not certify its truth."
-M. Cooley

...Veritas? Quid est Veritas?

la_flash · Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 2:38 am Post subject:

kn1ghtjp · Observer Joined: 06 Dec 2006 Posts: 27

ah ok, but then we are not talking about the same things.

First we learn to learn, and then we learn about other things. All of us start off encountering things alien to us. From a toddler up to now, new things start off as 'alien' to us. Our attitude toward these alien things is what we can term as wise or foolish. We consider it foolish to think that we know everything we need to know about something alien. This inhibits learning. We consider it wise to assume that we know nothing of something we see as alien, this allows us to learn. We consider this attitude, wise.

even in knowing "how to learn", how we use this knowledge determines if we are wise.

possession of knowledge as i said is not wisdom nor is it even the absence of that knowledge. in fact, it has nothing to do with it. One can be wise because of knowledge but not necessarily because of it. There is wisdom that needs a foundation of knowledge as it is the application of knowledge, but there is also wisdom that we term as judgment, insight, the primal ability to use the tools of logic. There are the wise, and there are the foolish.